|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"capitalism requires permanent war" in the same way that a shop requires having its city's windows smashed and re-fitted and smashed and refitted permanently...... (that is to say, it doesn't, because you can't spend the same dollar twice and every dollar spent on war, or broken windows, is a dollar not spent on.......)
back on topic....
North Korea should have been invaded, regime change-style, 5 years ago. Who can refute me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
North Korea should have been invaded, regime change-style, 5 years ago. Who can refute me? |
Indeed..indeed.
Looks like we'll have to move into the new era of worldwide nuclear proliferation instead.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Indeed, Julius. Thanks to foaming-at-the-mouth hippies and Muslims, we've now got a nuclear arms race in East Asia and the Middle East. How can we ever repay them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Out of the Korean adults I know, I've heard a fair bit share similar views... but after a few minutes of questioning and counter theories, their position quickly fades.
|
That's been my experience. With the exception of one or two miitant leftists(members of the infamous teachers' union), the Koreans I know, if pressed on the matter, will say that the US troops are needed for the security of Korea. And this is in Gwangju. |
Hrmmm, my former Korean compatriots in Daegu would agree. But hearing such opinions are also held by Gwangju-인들 is a bit more surprising.
However, Seoul is its own la-la land in this department, I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vonjunk wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Capitalism requires permanent war. |
Wow. Perhaps to clarify, would you say defense companies require constant wars, or threats of wars? Yes. Capitalism? Nope.
When the US was neutral or better Switzerland is neutral, they are capitalists and thrive.
If you have a chance read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Here's a link for a free online version:
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html
The richest countries in the world all use to one degree or another capitalism. If you really want to move back to a less prosperous time with no computers, air conditioning, cars, steady stream of food, division of labor (better give up that teaching job, you're going back to the fields my boy) and on and on. |
| kg2095 wrote: |
| What's your reasoning behind this? |
Defense companies exist within a capitalist framework, i.e. they need to continually produce increasing profits in order to satisfy their shareholder/owners. Once they have supplied a government with enough arms to protect itself, usually a couple of times (or more) over to err on the side of caution, what else can they do to assure next year's contracts are fatter? Replace them, or make better ones. War is the most efficient way to create a need for a lot more arms in a hurry.
But just waiting for a war in the normal course of events would take too long. Best is to have constant war with a constant need for more and more arms, while continually antagonizing other countries against each other and us.
At the same time, non-defense companies become behemoth multinationals which need to exploit third world countries in order to continually expand their profits in their race to the sweatshop bottom. Under normal circumstances, such populations would not stand for this if they were not harshly repressed, often by military dictatorships in these countries armed and equipped by American defense contractors.
Vonjunk, you appear to confuse capitalism with Luddism. To the contrary of your assertion, were so many resources given back to the people who produced them instead of to the war machine, we would all have our cars, computers, etc., as well as affordable health care and housing.
In early capitalism, constant war is not necessary as there is much room for growth without having to resort to the arms option. However, at this point capitalism is a system in terminal decay, becoming ever more desperate to squeeze the last profits from an ever more impoverished population.
The Democrat Party, as the reform wing of capital, are the enablers of this system which is why as the $1.44 quadrillion derivatives bubble gets ready to burst, profits are squeezed, and pensions and health care funds get raided, will have no incentive to do anything else since there are no profits in it.
If you have a chance, go to the Taking Aim Radio Archive and listen to any or all of the following:
The series, �Barack Obama: False Hope and Short Change�
081007 Capitalism in Free-Fall
081125 Obama's Real Mandate: Preserving Capitalism
081209 Crony Capitalism Revisited
090120 President Obama: Preserving a Decaying Capitalism
090331 Barack Obama and the Finance Capitalists: "On the Same Page"
090407 "It's a depression": The Relentless Class War on Working People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Wall of Whiner
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Middle Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: What a few Korean men think about NK and US |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| I spoke with a few Korean men about this topic. The men are well educated, and work for large companies in Seoul. The prevailing thought is that the United States purposely escalates tension between North and South Korea, so they can sell more weapons to the South. |
These so-called "educated" men really make me chuckle.
1. Arresting and sentencing those two American journalists to 12 years hard labour is hardly the work of the U.S. government.
2. Pyeongyang testing 2 nuclear bombs and a slew of missiles is hardly the work of the U.S. government.
3. The abuse and their own people is hardly the work of the U.S. government.
4. Pulling out of talks is hardly the work of the U.S. government.
5. Threatening South Korea with a "tidal wave of fire" is hardly the work of the U.S. government.
<rolls eyes so hard they fall out of their sockets> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A very compelling thread topic indeed, OP.
While it doesn't surprise me that the younger generations in South Korea harbor ill-founded resentment toward Americans, this conspiratorial mindset does.
It would seem that xenophobia has taken a nasty turn for the worse, reaffirming my decision to leave the country for good. Why I should assist students with this warped view of the situation? I'll make a prediction, too: Koreans will never become proficient in English to the same extent as several other places in Asia until they expand their world view. Paradoxically, the older generations who experienced the war are far more accepting in the main.
The question of whether ROK or USA has profited more materially from our presence there is a non-starter. Of course we have poured in billions more, beginning with massive educational aid in the wake of the war. More recent generations either don't know that or are ungrateful, which is further galling.
West Germany absorbed East Germany with a decade of economic turmoil but both came through. The same would NOT happen so quickly or easily with the two Koreas, I firmly believe. The Asian propensity for self-interest over national interest would prevail and be exacerbated by the need to save face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
At the same time, non-defense companies become behemoth multinationals which need to exploit third world countries in order to continually expand their profits in their race to the sweatshop bottom. Under normal circumstances, such populations would not stand for this if they were not harshly repressed, often by military dictatorships in these countries armed and equipped by American defense contractors.
|
Right. Russia and China have never "harshly repressed" other countries or endorsed dictators, and bear no blame: it is 99% the fault of the Great Satan.
| bacasper wrote: |
Vonjunk, you appear to confuse capitalism with Luddism. To the contrary of your assertion, were so many resources given back to the people who produced them instead of to the war machine, we would all have our cars, computers, etc., as well as affordable health care and housing. |
Or perhaps we would be goose-stepping to the Horst-Wessel.
| bacasper wrote: |
In early capitalism, constant war is not necessary as there is much room for growth without having to resort to the arms option. However, at this point capitalism is a system in terminal decay, becoming ever more desperate to squeeze the last profits from an ever more impoverished population. |
Capitalism is in "terminal decay"? Try setting foot in a non-capitalist country, as they're beginning to thrive. Not.
| bacasper wrote: |
The Democrat Party, as the reform wing of capital, are the enablers of this system which is why as the $1.44 quadrillion derivatives bubble gets ready to burst, profits are squeezed, and pensions and health care funds get raided, will have no incentive to do anything else since there are no profits in it. |
Do you really think old-age pensions and health care are capitalistical? C'mon bacasper, you gotta do better than that! You sound as silly as the OP's "well educated" Korean men! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
At the same time, non-defense companies become behemoth multinationals which need to exploit third world countries in order to continually expand their profits in their race to the sweatshop bottom. Under normal circumstances, such populations would not stand for this if they were not harshly repressed, often by military dictatorships in these countries armed and equipped by American defense contractors.
|
Right. Russia and China have never "harshly repressed" other countries or endorsed dictators, and bear no blame: it is 99% the fault of the Great Satan. |
Except perhaps for modern Russia, we are not talking about them now, are we?
| Quote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
In early capitalism, constant war is not necessary as there is much room for growth without having to resort to the arms option. However, at this point capitalism is a system in terminal decay, becoming ever more desperate to squeeze the last profits from an ever more impoverished population. |
Capitalism is in "terminal decay"? Try setting foot in a non-capitalist country, as they're beginning to thrive. Not. |
Having spent a good deal of time in Cuba, I can say with confidence, Cuba is NOT the answer.
| Quote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
The Democrat Party, as the reform wing of capital, are the enablers of this system which is why as the $1.44 quadrillion derivatives bubble gets ready to burst, profits are squeezed, and pensions and health care funds get raided, will have no incentive to do anything else since there are no profits in it. |
Do you really think old-age pensions and health care are capitalistical? C'mon bacasper, you gotta do better than that! You sound as silly as the OP's "well educated" Korean men! |
No, they are not capitalist, but stealing their funds sure seems to be.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| the entire Korean peninsula conflict is perpetrated by the US, so that they can sell more weapons to... South Koreans |
This is obviously a rather extreme view and maybe you've exaggerated it slightly; surely they realize the division was caused (perpetrated) by the cold-war. I do think they've got a point, however. It is obviously in the interest of American arms producers to exaggerate and prolong any stand-off. In turn, it becomes in the interest of the American economy to also see tensions rise (and with it arms sales) but not actual conflict.Can evidence be shown that certain people within the military-industrial complex, or in fact politicians, do anything to ratchet up the tensions?
When Bush named NK as part of the 'axis of evil', alongside Iran and Iraq (which he was just about to conquer) I'm sure it affected NK thinking. Was it necessary to name NK? Does Cheney have deep links with the military industrial complex? Yes.
But as I said, this conflict was not intentionally started by the US, but that doesn't mean it, or it's corporations, won't exploit it. However, as 'A Great Wall of Whiner' notes, NK's crazy actions don't help and probably are mostly responsible for increasing tensions.
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| ...they are also convinced that North Korea would never attack South Korea. |
I also find this view pretty reasonable / logical. If NK attacked they'd know they're basically destroying themselves, either from a nuclear/conventional attack, or an invasion. Although their command structure may be insane, it's unlikely 20-30 people at the top would authorize a first-strike with everything to lose. But the gentleman are probably basing their view on the thought Koreans wouldn't hurt their own: certainly a possibility.
| Quote: |
| With that kind of thinking, the North will always have the "Surprise Attack" advantage. |
It's quite obvious to everyone, including the North Koreans there's no actualy 'winning' of any war.... therefore, there is no advantage to strike first.
| Quote: |
| 3) The US spends billions of dollars propping up the south. If all they were interested in was profits, they'd make more money by leaving South Korea to defend itself. |
I think aid to Korea has mostly stopped....
| Quote: |
| From 1953 to 1974, when grant assistance dwindled to a negligible amount, the nation received some US$4 billion of grant aid. About US$3 billion was received before 1968, forming an average of 60 percent of all investment in South Korea.... however, the dependence on foreign grant assistance lessened. During the 1966-74 period, foreign assistance constituted about 4.5 percent of GNP and less than 20 percent of all investment. Before 1965 the United States was the largest single aid contributor, but thereafter Japan and other international sponsors played an increasingly important role. |
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12334.html
Whereas this nuclear standoff could potentially last decades. Please feel free to find some data on current/other aid.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| North Korea should have been invaded, regime change-style, 5 years ago. Who can refute me? |
Well, the argument against it is that you're not allowed pre-emptive war. This obviously all changed with the Bush doctrine. Furthermore, you wouldn't have been able to stop losing thousands of lives in Seoul from conventional attack. Understandably SKs are not willing to sacrifice themselves.
| vonjunk wrote: |
| I had a surreal conversation with a Korean man... he told me one time, that the South would have been better if the North had won. |
It's a bit leftfield, but this is a defendable position. Maybe Korea would have become a Soviet satellite state, or maybe it would be like China, both probably a better position than it now finds itself in.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Thanks to foaming-at-the-mouth hippies and Muslims, we've now got a nuclear arms race in East Asia and the Middle East. |
Saying things like this makes you sound silly and undermines any reasonable argument you might have.
Eugh.... Booo to this....
| Julius wrote: |
| To be honest Koreans... are ignorant and ungrateful fools |
Below the belt I'd say.
Last edited by RufusW on Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
It is obviously in the interest of American arms producers to exaggerate and prolong any stand-off. In turn, it becomes in the interest of the American economy to also see tensions rise (and with it arms sales) but not actual conflict. Can evidence be shown that certain people within the military-industrial complex, or in fact politicians, do anything to ratchet up the tensions?
But as I said, this conflict was not intentionally started by the US, but that doesn't mean it, or it's corporations, won't exploit it. |
You must be joking. How does the interest of American arms producers morph so effortlessly into the interest of the American economy? A great many American industries and concerns rely on the security in Japan and South Korea, which together comprise about 1/10th of the global economy by nominal GDP standards.
Tell me please how in a global economy American "corporations" exploit missiles pounding Japanese cities and artillery pounding Seoul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| How does the interest of American arms producers morph so effortlessly into the interest of the American economy? |
Well the military industrial complex is a part of the American economy. Apparently arms sales are now worth about 20Billion to the US. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1205-07.htm
Furthermore, for example, the B52 bomber has parts made in nearly all of the states. Congress are less likely to cut such programs because it'll hurt the state's economy.
| Kuros wrote: |
| A great many American industries and concerns rely on the security in Japan and South Korea, which together comprise about 1/10th of the global economy by nominal GDP standards. |
I take that point, and there's obviously a necessity for some armament, but companies will always push for upgrades and new equipment. This is linked to Casper's arguement about capitalism always searching for higher returns etc. www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/as-crisis-deepens-us-bolsters-south-koreas-arsenal/
| Kuros wrote: |
| Tell me please how in a global economy American "corporations" exploit missiles pounding Japanese cities and artillery pounding Seoul. |
I said it exploits the current situation - one of fear about a potential attack - not an actual attack. Which scenario does the massive company Lockheed Martin prefer: escalation and stand-off, or peaceful negotiation by its government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Tell me please how in a global economy American "corporations" exploit missiles pounding Japanese cities and artillery pounding Seoul. |
Kuros, put down the law books and pickup some history books.
How did America get out of the Great Depression "of 1929?" That is in quotes because that is only when in began but things actually continued downhill for several years to its nadir around 1938. What got us out of that was the gearing up for, and then participation in, World War II. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Tell me please how in a global economy American "corporations" exploit missiles pounding Japanese cities and artillery pounding Seoul. |
Kuros, put down the law books and pickup some history books.
How did America get out of the Great Depression "of 1929?" That is in quotes because that is only when in began but things actually continued downhill for several years to its nadir around 1938. What got us out of that was the gearing up for, and then participation in, World War II. |
That's right, to solve the Great Depression, the United States bombed Pearl Harbor.
Ba, you had your choice of imperialist adventures to choose from and you picked WWII? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's as perfect example of why we need to keep our military and our money in the USA. Maybe they'll grow some balls and tell us or ask us to leave and not panic and reneg when our troops start packing their bags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
